Cigarettes

[surfingbudda]

Hi Rainbow Vein

I am by no means an expert on smoking, however I would defiantly argue that smoking natural tobacco is way better than commercial brand, is it healthy though? Thats a different story. Inhaling vapor versus smoking a cigarette would be the best option, because with vapor you are not getting the burnt paper from the cigarette into your lungs. These are my conclusions, but feel free to post any arguments against them.

[Owledge]

Referring to things I've read in the forums...

 

I can consider trusting a shaman who uses tobacco in ceremonies, but I'd have trouble trusting his judgment in that area if he also smokes regular cigarettes outside of the ceremonies.

[Taomeow]

Wow, try to relax. You're acting like you're waging a war. Your 'strategic secrecy' reminded me a bit of Israel not wanting to say whether they have nukes or not. Not healthy.

 

This looks pretty ad hominem to me... too bad, I wasn't yet giving up on you till now. OK, to address your concerns:

I wasn't particularly tense, you just used this move in order to gain a patronizing superiority stance -- but much as I hate to disappoint you, I'm in perfect control of how tense or how relaxed I choose to be at any given moment, and pretty aware of it too;

I am not acting like I'm waging a war, I'm acting like I'm writing a forum post expressing a strong opinion;

my 'strategic secrecy' is nothing more than my lack of interest in satisfying a trolling appetite;

and yes, Israel does have nukes, they told me so, but they won't tell you because you are not asking questions in order to get answers, you are asking them in order to turn the acquired information against the opponent. Fair enough?..

[Taomeow]

(Taomeow, feel free to comment if you have any thoughts on this recent 'third hand smoke' designation. I know California has a campaign regarding it, though I don't know details.)

 

Oh, I would really love to see all those sensitive folks intolerant of the toxic impact of the smell of tobacco on clothes to be permanently relocated to the Gulf of Mexico. Let them smell oil and Corexit instead. They can even be employed as FDA experts who determine the safety of seafood by smell test -- that's official by the way -- they sniff dead fish scooped out for public consumption and then announce it safe and chemicals-free. Oh, and the crusaders against the personal habits that are a public hazard like the smell of tobacco on clothes could still fight the smokers there -- it's a tad easier than taking on BP et al, but every bit as gratifying, righteous indignation 'n all.

[NeiChuan]

Ciggarettes are just another thing the government uses to make a buck off of people in the end.

 

Much like many other things..

 

If people choose to do it though, can't really stop them. If they breathe it in my face they've got trouble, other then that it isn't a situation of mine, so I rarely think of it.

[goonis38]

Hi there all,

Well it's funny I used to smoke when I was younger and stay out late and it not effect me. Now at 40 don't even think about it. It would lay me up for a week. And it's also funny if your the one smoking you don't smell how bad you smell.

But when you stop. wow you stink! and your cloths, and mouth. So yes it hurts us so much besides or insides...

Glad I don't do that anymore... If I go drinking, I see people smoking. I want to also, It seems to go with drinking quite well...

Melanie

[Procurator]

Referring to things I've read in the forums...

 

I can consider trusting a shaman who uses tobacco in ceremonies, but I'd have trouble trusting his judgment in that area if he also smokes regular cigarettes outside of the ceremonies.

u might be interested to know that almost all of traditional martial arts practitioners in China smoke.

[z00se]

u might be interested to know that almost all of traditional martial arts practitioners in China smoke.

 

Yeah when i lived in china my tai chi teacher smoked and he was a real master who practiced kung fu and other arts his whole life. Bruce lee's old man smokes a pipe! Yep heaps of em smoke.

 

I smoke on occation. Not ever day, maybe only 1-2 days a week or maybe not for 2 weeks. I still love it though. smoking can be great but the more you have the better they become thats the addictiveness of them.

 

TCM says it burns the yin of the lungs. I know thats true. Of course it will effect every system as all things are connected. It relaxes you too. And is good for digestion. When you stop your digestion slows down though!

 

All in all i think smoking has good factors like:

Good for socializing

Gives you space to talk to higher ranking people in society that also smoke

Relaxes you in times of need and prevents you acting crazily or angrily when you really should be calm

 

However of course breathing smoke into your lungs is bad and makes it harder to breath in the future. Living in the NOW would make it even harder to stop. But we all know the future exists and so we need to prepare ourselves for it also. Moderation is the key as is everything. I eat maccas too but not every day. I ejaculate too but not every day.

 

If you like it do it. You can't die wishing you had've tried it. But it's not wise to abuse it to the point it kills you.

 

But we all know this. It's not new news.

 

Socially now it's not accepted. But when have social views effected the taoist.

[Aetherous]

u might be interested to know that almost all of traditional martial arts practitioners in China smoke.

 

Why?

[Taomeow]

I highly recommend, as a first step in the general direction of the truth for those who have been summarily denied it by the globalist fundamentalist antismoking cult, the study of a document known as The Brussels Declaration of Scientific Integrity, in particular the section dealing with prohibitionist pseudoscientific tactics used to artificially manufacture nonexistent data on the health hazards of secondhand smoke and manipulate public opinion and attitudes accordingly.

 

http://brusselsdecla...assive_smoking/

 

You can also familiarize yourself with some of the documents and books listed here:

 

http://fightingback.homestead.com/

 

Once the basics are covered, we can proceed to "TCM and tobacco" the real story.

[Ya Mu]

Speaking of stinkin' smokers...I grew up with two parents who smoked. Fortunately, I lived in a state where we had the windows open most of the time. I grew up never wanting to smoke a cigarette. Why? Because to me, it was unappealing. Smokers stinked. And you know what that's called these days? Third hand smoke.

 

 

To this day, I can detect this 'third hand smoke,' via my nose, on smokers and I react poorly to it. It's not about the person, just the toxicity of the smoke on his/her clothes. Even when the clothes are taken off and draped on the back of a chair. The smoke can still reek.

 

(Taomeow, feel free to comment if you have any thoughts on this recent 'third hand smoke' designation. I know California has a campaign regarding it, though I don't know details.)

 

 

I do have a couple of questions for anyone with experience.

 

> What's the difference, and is there a big one, between smoking naturally additive-free tobacco and commercial cigarettes?

 

> What's the difference in inhaling the smoke from tobacco burning (e.g., pipe/rolled paper) versus inhaling the vapor from tobacco on an electric heating element (i.e., vaporizer)?

 

In clinic, for those that "tried everything" and wished to stop smoking, or cut down, I have talked about utilizing natural hands of tobacco with cotton filters and natural papers. Probably one of the significant aspects of this method is it intensely cuts down on the "gotta have it right now" nervous habit of popping a cigarette in the mouth, as true preparation is required. Another, I believe, is that the pure tobacco differs significantly from the "floor sweepings" of commercial cigarettes which contain toxins from other substances. So IMO what I have seen is that the satisfaction of the pure tobacco is much higher so the total cigarettes desired is much less. After a person transfers to this method, then it is up to them whether they wish to quit or not.

 

It always amazes people who smoke and quit that they used to smell so distinctly. While one is smoking he/she cannot tell.

 

I played in a rock band last year in bars. I had to leave my clothing outside when I came home so I could wash it (twice) the next day because to me they stunk really bad.

[surfingbudda]

 

 

I played in a rock band last year in bars. I had to leave my clothing outside when I came home so I could wash it (twice) the next day because to me they stunk really bad.

 

Thats cool! what instrument do you play, I recently began getting into the Ukulele . Would you happen to have any CD's or recordings of your music that you would like to share?

[Aetherous]

TM,

 

Most of that info is regarding second hand smoke. We're talking about smoking first hand here...

[Procurator]

Why?

'cause its enjoyable.

[Taomeow]

Hi Taomeow, this smoking topic has elicited an emotional trigger for you. For me, as well.

 

I feel the pain of family members who have faced (and continue to face) disability, dismemberment and death from smoking's hazards. Death from esophagus cancer. Dismemberment from lung cancer and open heart surgery. Disability and reduced quality of life from COPD.

 

Yes, if it being the outcome of smoking wasn't made up, it would have been horrible.

 

Like Scotty said, his grandmother smoked till age 102 but it doesn't mean it was good for her. However if she died at half that age of cancer, it would definitely mean "because of smoking," right?

 

Scotty, why I posted about secondhand smoke -- because that's where we need to start rescuing people from the cult. The nonsmokers who are brainwashed into believing they are being harmed by smokers, and belligerently hostile toward the latter as a result. If they learn they'd been given a target instead, a scapegoat ('cause who's gonna fight corporations that poison food, water, air, and yes cigarettes too, everything and everybody? no one has the power... whereas lashing out at an individual who lights up is a welcome break from this powerless self-perception, an empowering power trip... which is one of the many reasons we have been co-opted into the cult to begin with). If even this sinks in, for starters, then the next question might be, well, what else did they lie about?.. If this question consciously arises, I will answer. I'm not going to waste arguments where they can't get through... something has to give first.

 

Oh, on the subject of stinking clothes and so on. I am extremely sensitive to smells. I can't handle the smell of commercial cigarettes, because they don't smell of tobacco, they smell of toxic chemicals therein. But there's worse things out there. There's deodorants and perfumes. Petroleum-based personal hygiene products, with volatile toxic chemicals -- they are designed to be volatile, unlike nicotine which is a tar and doesn't float around as a smell once the open window takes the smoke out of the room -- but perfume is designed to last and last, right?.. So unlike nicotine which doesn't have this ability, deodorants and toilet waters and perfumes that everybody uses and no one is investigating for health impact (why would they?.. right?..) really really stink. Some people use a little, and I can handle being in their company, but others (many) use a lot, and I start having breathing problems. And moral and ethical and health concerns too. I would love to start educating people (not discriminating against them, mind you) about the health hazards of what they use for "attractiveness" and "smelling good" but first they would have to believe they smell bad, not good. Can they believe it if their all senses are confused?.. if when they are not using these products, they smell of a toxic body (no showers help, not for longer than half an hour anyway), they smell of poisonous "diet" foods and drinks, of constipation (for which smoking real tobacco is a cure, by the way), they breathe out stinking ketones because their insulin-glucose metabolism is off kilter, they smell of mold when they are on antibiotics, of quiet desperation when on antidepressants... yuck.

 

Real tobacco which many of you may never have smelled (it was tampered with, see) smells the way a burning herb is supposed to smell -- nice. The word "perfume" means "through the smoke" in Latin -- the original way to "perfume" yourself for nice smell and health and attractiveness was to get smudged with the smoke of burning herbs. Don't we all love our Better Life Through Chemistry.

[bindo]

I agree with Taomeow.

 

And on a lighter note, here's Bill Hicks on smoking

[Kali Yuga]

Taomeow, I can easily find multiple peer reviewed studies showing how tobacco smoking is harmful. Just do a search for smoking in any database.

 

Who cares if any study's funding can be traced to "big pharma"? It makes no difference whatsoever when these studies are actually reviewed and published. The results they get are legit.

 

Are you actually attempting to make the argument that smoking isn't harmful?

The argument that TaoMeow is trying to make is that these companies, the Big Pharma, have invested unbelievable amounts of money into the medical community, especially highly regarded individuals in certain communities. Why? Vested interest. So when studies are published, they come out to favor, or disfavor, certain things. Most people think that "scientific studies" are hard, concrete, truth. Sometimes, yes, but with things especially where commercial consumption is concerned, it could be further from the truth.

 

You can find one example in the public fluoridated water that many countries now possess today. Wherever you will go, the scientific community all bleats the same thing; that fluoride strengthens tooth enamel. However, there are some of those in that community who are crying foul play because their own independently made studies find no conclusive evidence that fluoride actually plays any part in improving dental health.

 

They are not heard however, because there are too many people profiting it. They can't fight the industry leaders who are also conveniently on pay roll. There was one dentist who did a study on that -I do not remember his name. His study found that examining the difference between patient data in fluoridated states versus nonfluoridated states show no evidence that fluoride plays any role whatsoever.

 

Look up fluoride -its an ingredient in rat poison. Look on the the warning on the back of toothpaste tubes -the one about calling the poison control center if small children swallow it. But wait, its not in toxic dosage now is it? Fluoride is a poison no matter how you put it. Fluoride is linked to mental retardation, birth defects and brittle bones! But whose idea was is to put fluoride in our public water any way? Who were the crazy scientists who would propagate such an outright lie and push this propaganda? What industry profits from having its fluoride waste conveniently being purchased by the government to dump in our water supply? You can find that out for yourselves. The rabbit hole may be deeper than we think.

 

Most certain of all is one thing; that people will not question many of these things because it is based on "scientific evidence". Studies are skewed in ways; and the scientists are forced to. Why? Because almost no one will fund research for free; it all comes with money. Some scientists actually want to do real research to benefit the scientific community, but *dun-dun-dun-dun* they have no money. Which is where Big Brother Pharma comes in and gives them the choice of swallowing the bitter pill.

 

Science is not just pure science; it is also politics and money. There is the same thing going on for marijuana and why there are very few government fueled studies on examining its benefits towards medical patients or even its benefits to a populace. It is simply impossible to get funding for it. Why? Because the big companies whose dirty money runs all through the government simply can not make money off of it. How are they going to patent, and limit competition in production when you can grow this medicine in your back yard? They profit from it being illegal.

 

Big Pharma is an evil fucker -they are even marketing pills for diseases that they made up, supported a-ok by the "scientific community"! Like "social anxiety disorder"! Is that actually a disorder or something that we all go through? Isn't it natural for everybody to be anxious around other people? If you don't feel that some time in your life then there must be something wrong with you, because we all are wired to feel this way sometimes. But only Big Pharma will call something normal a disease, and market a magic pill to cure what was normal.

Edited December 6, 2010 by Kali Yuga

[Taomeow]

Excellent elucidations, thank you.

 

And now let's move on to the actual studies that "proved" smoking "causes" what they told the public it causes -- the only studies ever performed. Here's how they were designed -- I guess it tells you a bit about the character of the people who found it necessary to design and implement them in this manner, on top of other interesting ideas you might derive from the actual information as to what it takes to make "hard scientific proof" in the lab and how easy it is to prove absolutely anything under extreme torture conditions. And how necessary it is to resort to torture to prove something that is a lie and therefore can't be "confessed" by the living body in any other manner.

 

 

Smoking Beagles

 

In the earliest experiments (1950s or early 1960s) the "beagles were strapped side-by-side to a long bench, in a rather unnatural upright position. They were fitted with face masks, which forced them to inhale and exhale smoke from lighted cigarettes. A mechanical device lit a new cigarette and dropped it into the air line as soon as an old one was used up.

 

Colby writes, "Although the Surgeon General later claimed the smoking machines did not force animals to inhale and exhale deeply, the newsreel footage sure make it look as if the dogs were inhaling and exhaling deeply."

 

Colby then describes an experiment by government scientist Oscar Auerbach et al which was cited in the Surgeon.General's report of 1971. In this one, the government scientists slit the throats of 78 Beagles and inserted mechanisms in these "tracheotomies" which enabled the dogs to "smoke" through their throats. This experiment was again described in the 1977 S.G.'s report. The 1982 S.G.'s report also described it. Chapter 9, In Defense of Smokers

 

Incidentally, no dogs contracted lung cancer. Deaths were due to "various causes," chiefly "food aspiration."

 

Severed Legs

 

Not covered by Colby but listed in the Center for Disease Control's Bibliography of Continuing Studies on Smoking and Health, 1984-85 is a study on the effect of tobacco to the circulatory system. In this one, the legs of the dogs were completely severed except for the major arteries. The dogs, still living, were monitored for extended periods while the researchers kept track of the effects of nicotine on the circulatory system. Presumably they were unconscious during these tests.

 

Ripped Chests

 

Ten dogs had their chest cavities opened so that their coronary arteries could be mechanically manipulated to reduce blood flow. The dogs were forced to breathe cigarette smoke, then treated with Ethanol. Ethanol then cigarette smoke, cigarette smoke then Ethanol.¹

 

Secondhand Smoke For a change, no animals were pierced, cut, strapped down, rendered unconscious, shot up with dangerous substances or forced to breath tobacco smoke through tracheotomies. Instead two veterinary teaching hospitals examined pet dogs in the comfort of their own homes. Exposure levels to secondhand smoke were assessed. Disappointingly, the researchers found no dose response, no statistical significant risk.³

[Birch]

"Most people think that "scientific studies" are hard, concrete, truth."

 

Where's your data?

 

Kidding

 

I'm trying to find that other post on why people cave in for cults. I think it was one of TaoMoew's

 

Still, I used to smoke cigarettes (regular, additive-filled) and I quit for the following reasons:

 

- I could feel what it was doing to my physical capacity - eg. climbing stairs etc

- The heavy disapproval of people around me

- The smell

 

So perhaps those were not "real tobacco" cigarettes I was smoking?

 

I think the heavy disapproval got me.

 

I'd be very interested in the TCM perspective. And I wonder, how many "TCM" utterings are based on the utterer's own biased disapproval?

[Alfred E]

Excellent elucidations, thank you.

 

And now let's move on to the actual studies that "proved" smoking "causes" what they told the public it causes -- the only studies ever performed. Here's how they were designed -- I guess it tells you a bit about the character of the people who found it necessary to design and implement them in this manner, on top of other interesting ideas you might derive from the actual information as to what it takes to make "hard scientific proof" in the lab and how easy it is to prove absolutely anything under extreme torture conditions. And how necessary it is to resort to torture to prove something that is a lie and therefore can't be "confessed" by the living body in any other manner.

 

 

Smoking Beagles

 

In the earliest experiments (1950s or early 1960s) the "beagles were strapped side-by-side to a long bench, in a rather unnatural upright position. They were fitted with face masks, which forced them to inhale and exhale smoke from lighted cigarettes. A mechanical device lit a new cigarette and dropped it into the air line as soon as an old one was used up.

 

Colby writes, "Although the Surgeon General later claimed the smoking machines did not force animals to inhale and exhale deeply, the newsreel footage sure make it look as if the dogs were inhaling and exhaling deeply."

 

Colby then describes an experiment by government scientist Oscar Auerbach et al which was cited in the Surgeon.General's report of 1971. In this one, the government scientists slit the throats of 78 Beagles and inserted mechanisms in these "tracheotomies" which enabled the dogs to "smoke" through their throats. This experiment was again described in the 1977 S.G.'s report. The 1982 S.G.'s report also described it. Chapter 9, In Defense of Smokers

 

Incidentally, no dogs contracted lung cancer. Deaths were due to "various causes," chiefly "food aspiration."

 

Severed Legs

 

Not covered by Colby but listed in the Center for Disease Control's Bibliography of Continuing Studies on Smoking and Health, 1984-85 is a study on the effect of tobacco to the circulatory system. In this one, the legs of the dogs were completely severed except for the major arteries. The dogs, still living, were monitored for extended periods while the researchers kept track of the effects of nicotine on the circulatory system. Presumably they were unconscious during these tests.

 

Ripped Chests

 

Ten dogs had their chest cavities opened so that their coronary arteries could be mechanically manipulated to reduce blood flow. The dogs were forced to breathe cigarette smoke, then treated with Ethanol. Ethanol then cigarette smoke, cigarette smoke then Ethanol.¹

 

Secondhand Smoke For a change, no animals were pierced, cut, strapped down, rendered unconscious, shot up with dangerous substances or forced to breath tobacco smoke through tracheotomies. Instead two veterinary teaching hospitals examined pet dogs in the comfort of their own homes. Exposure levels to secondhand smoke were assessed. Disappointingly, the researchers found no dose response, no statistical significant risk.³

Are You a Tobacco Addict ? You post like one.

[Taomeow]

Are You a Tobacco Addict ? You post like one.

 

I post like a freedom warrior, you, like a label machine.

[strawdog65]

Hello everyone!

 

In the interest of provoking an impartial

end to further contention...

 

How about agreeing to disagree?

 

Love it or hate it... it is what it is.

 

Judgment, based on emotion, precludes clarity.

 

 

 

Peace!!!

Edited December 7, 2010 by strawdog65

[rene]

Hello everyone!

 

In the interest of provoking a non-dualistic

end to further contention...

 

How about agreeing to disagree?

 

Love it or hate it... it is what it is.

 

Judgment, based on emotion, precludes clarity.

 

 

 

Peace!!!

 

 

??

[Birch]

This has to go here http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2010/05/taleb_on_black_1.html

 

It's a long interview but man, I reckon this dude's a Taoist

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

To echo a point made by Taomeow, i find colognes, perfumes, and such fragrances to be as offensive as cigarette and cigar smoke.. i use naturally occuring and fragrance-free mineral salts to control perspiration odor..

 

Be well..